Forum: General

An "easy" question.....

Has any Foriegn Country that bought the F/A-18 once ever gone back to that trough for a second purchace???

I've been "lucky" enough to work on F-18's, F-15's, & F-16's, In my limited (avionics) experience, McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) doesn't make airplanes that are easy to maintain or keep flying well

Smitty

F-16.net Sponsor

Maybe the fact that it's a two engine navy plane that makes it such an A$$ for maintenance. F-16 and F-15 are maintenance friendly because it doesn't have to land on a ship so everything doesn't have to be "reinforced' in a sense.

bjr1028 wrote:

They had dumb bomb capability.

If I recall correctly the Israelis choose using dumb bombs over PGMs, as they didn't believe they had time to loiter over the target long enough to laze it.

Operation Opera IMO was one lucky strike. Had they been intercepted by Saudi or Iraqi aircraft, it would have been game over regardless of the F-16's avionics capability.

silversmok3 wrote:

bjr1028 wrote:

They had dumb bomb capability.

If I recall correctly the Israelis choose using dumb bombs over PGMs, as they didn't believe they had time to loiter over the target long enough to laze it.

Operation Opera IMO was one lucky strike. Had they been intercepted by Saudi or Iraqi aircraft, it would have been game over regardless of the F-16's avionics capability.

One lucky strike??? If so, god must indeed be Jewish because the Israelis seem to get lucky once and once again when it comes to beating the living crap out of their enemies. I'm sorry, sir, but your "IMO" is utterly idiotic. It's called planning, skill and execution. Look them up.

sextusempiricus wrote:

silversmok3 wrote:

bjr1028 wrote:

They had dumb bomb capability.

If I recall correctly the Israelis choose using dumb bombs over PGMs, as they didn't believe they had time to loiter over the target long enough to laze it.

Operation Opera IMO was one lucky strike. Had they been intercepted by Saudi or Iraqi aircraft, it would have been game over regardless of the F-16's avionics capability.

One lucky strike??? If so, god must indeed be Jewish because the Israelis seem to get lucky once and once again when it comes to beating the living crap out of their enemies. I'm sorry, sir, but your "IMO" is utterly idiotic. It's called planning, skill and execution. Look them up.

Did you think I typed that to mock the dedication of the IDF/AF? If so, you thought wrong.

The Osirak mission was , for their forces at the time, the limit of their strike capability.Had they been intercepted by the air forces of the countries they overflew to destroy the reactor complex, matters would have degraded fast.
Their fuel situation was so severe the F-16s landed with fumes in the tanks. There was no margin for error, and thankfully for all involved the mission went off without a hitch.

For an example of what I mean by bad luck overcoming planning, skill, and execution, see Operation Eagle Claw.

callsignthumper wrote:

The only fault is lack of power, they skimped. The Super Hornet, should have more powerfull engines, i know nothing of new enines, and not saying it had better options, but i hope they have future plans to make it accelerate better. Its a great multirole plane, but thats it, the jack of all trades, wont win in a dog-fight with a block 52, using equal pilots, on equal fronts. Oh yeah every Tomcat pilot i talked to, who was transitioning, didnt hate it, but wish they had the super cat.

Its more the wing than the engines.

silversmok3 wrote:

sextusempiricus wrote:

silversmok3 wrote:

bjr1028 wrote:

They had dumb bomb capability.

If I recall correctly the Israelis choose using dumb bombs over PGMs, as they didn't believe they had time to loiter over the target long enough to laze it.

Operation Opera IMO was one lucky strike. Had they been intercepted by Saudi or Iraqi aircraft, it would have been game over regardless of the F-16's avionics capability.

One lucky strike??? If so, god must indeed be Jewish because the Israelis seem to get lucky once and once again when it comes to beating the living crap out of their enemies. I'm sorry, sir, but your "IMO" is utterly idiotic. It's called planning, skill and execution. Look them up.

Did you think I typed that to mock the dedication of the IDF/AF? If so, you thought wrong.

The Osirak mission was , for their forces at the time, the limit of their strike capability.Had they been intercepted by the air forces of the countries they overflew to destroy the reactor complex, matters would have degraded fast.
Their fuel situation was so severe the F-16s landed with fumes in the tanks. There was no margin for error, and thankfully for all involved the mission went off without a hitch.

For an example of what I mean by bad luck overcoming planning, skill, and execution, see Operation Eagle Claw.

Do you really think the failure of OEC was merely due to "bad luck"? I'm not so sure. The U.S. military at the time was, to put it indelicately, rather incompetent, as that particular failure and the ill-fated mission in Lebanon demonstrate. Largely thanks to lessons learned from those boondoggles and the horrid Vietnam experience, the U.S. was able to correct its serious deficiencies so that by the time of ODS, the U.S. armed forces were once again world-class.

In contrast, the Israeli military was always and has always been world-class, pound-for-pound the most almost obscenely capable in the world. You are right that there was no margin for error over Osirak, but that's just it: planning, skill and execution eliminated errors. Did luck play a part? Sure, but as the ancient Greeks used to say, fortune favors the bold. If neither the Saudi or Iraq air forces went up to put up a fight it was due to planning and execution, not luck. The flight plan exploited gaps and deficiencies in both countries' air defenses, and even if they had put up a few fighters after minimal warning, the escorting Eagles would have chewed them up and spit them out without a great deal of trouble. The worst thing that could have happened is that the Eagle's combat kill ratio would have been 110 - 0 rather than 104 - 0, or whatever it is today.

For another example of the IAF's ability to fly with impunity over enemy territory just look at what happened to Syria's fledgling nuclear program last year. Another smoking hole in the desert. More unscathed Israeli F-16s. It's like clubbing baby seals...

sextusempiricus wrote:

silversmok3 wrote:

sextusempiricus wrote:

silversmok3 wrote:

bjr1028 wrote:

They had dumb bomb capability.

If I recall correctly the Israelis choose using dumb bombs over PGMs, as they didn't believe they had time to loiter over the target long enough to laze it.

Operation Opera IMO was one lucky strike. Had they been intercepted by Saudi or Iraqi aircraft, it would have been game over regardless of the F-16's avionics capability.

One lucky strike??? If so, god must indeed be Jewish because the Israelis seem to get lucky once and once again when it comes to beating the living crap out of their enemies. I'm sorry, sir, but your "IMO" is utterly idiotic. It's called planning, skill and execution. Look them up.

Did you think I typed that to mock the dedication of the IDF/AF? If so, you thought wrong.

The Osirak mission was , for their forces at the time, the limit of their strike capability.Had they been intercepted by the air forces of the countries they overflew to destroy the reactor complex, matters would have degraded fast.
Their fuel situation was so severe the F-16s landed with fumes in the tanks. There was no margin for error, and thankfully for all involved the mission went off without a hitch.

For an example of what I mean by bad luck overcoming planning, skill, and execution, see Operation Eagle Claw.

Do you really think the failure of OEC was merely due to "bad luck"? I'm not so sure. The U.S. military at the time was, to put it indelicately, rather incompetent, as that particular failure and the ill-fated mission in Lebanon demonstrate. Largely thanks to lessons learned from those boondoggles and the horrid Vietnam experience, the U.S. was able to correct its serious deficiencies so that by the time of ODS, the U.S. armed forces were once again world-class.

In contrast, the Israeli military was always and has always been world-class, pound-for-pound the most almost obscenely capable in the world. You are right that there was no margin for error over Osirak, but that's just it: planning, skill and execution eliminated errors. Did luck play a part? Sure, but as the ancient Greeks used to say, fortune favors the bold. If neither the Saudi or Iraq air forces went up to put up a fight it was due to planning and execution, not luck. The flight plan exploited gaps and deficiencies in both countries' air defenses, and even if they had put up a few fighters after minimal warning, the escorting Eagles would have chewed them up and spit them out without a great deal of trouble. The worst thing that could have happened is that the Eagle's combat kill ratio would have been 110 - 0 rather than 104 - 0, or whatever it is today.

For another example of the IAF's ability to fly with impunity over enemy territory just look at what happened to Syria's fledgling nuclear program last year. Another smoking hole in the desert. More unscathed Israeli F-16s. It's like clubbing baby seals...

Dude, are you posting this from Mossad HQ or something?

Col. Charlie Beckwith led Operation Eagle Claw. They drilled the mission obsessively, to the degree that the US Army build a mock-up of the embassy
to practice their takedowns at stateside.What sunk the mission were unforseen mechanical problems with 2 of the necessary helicopters, and the accidental collusion of a heli in a brownout with a C130 tanker plane.

BTW, Charles Beckwith founded Delta Force, and used that elite group to carry out Eagle Claw. You're smoking some good grass if you think those guys were incompetent. Ditto the US Air Force, who flew behind enemy lines to support the mission, or the Marine Corps. Pilots who flew the MH-53s in zero visibility through a sudden sandstorm.

Not to threadjack this back to the FA-18, but here's my two cents. When I was flying F-4s for the USAF, I had a high school bud flying them for the Navy. We'd trade war stories and lies (mostly), but the thing that struck me was how huge a divide the Navy made between Fighter (Air-to-Air) and Attack (Air-to-Mud). USN F-4s shot missiles and never pointed their nose at the ground in anger. The FA designation was created in part by the USN having an airframe capable of both missions and more importantly recognizing that having less than half the jets on carrier capable of dropping bombs was marginalizing in both a political and fiscally responsible sense. Hanging bombs on the F-14 was a good thing, and while the turkey did the job, it wasn't designed for it like the Hornet.

The bottom line tho is that while I've had my butt handed to me by Hornets and on occasion got my day VFR only Viper in the driver seat. They're equivalent jets and built with their own compromises required by their original design requirements. I'd give several body parts to get the opportunity to still be aviating either of them.

Why? Its not like you would be seeing any real action. In Vietnam, im sure you actualy saw a dog fight.

I was too late for VN...but except for an occasion engagement I read about in the Red Baron reports, the majority of A-A kills were unobserved. Randy Cunningham's last MiG kill sortie was worth reading about...

And if you really have to ask...you wouldn't understand

Buffalo wrote:

Not to threadjack this back to the FA-18, but here's my two cents. The FA designation was created in part by the USN having an airframe capable of both missions and more importantly recognizing that having less than half the jets on carrier capable of dropping bombs was marginalizing in both a political and fiscally responsible sense.

The Navy used to use different designations for aircraft. "A" for attack, "E" for electronic warfare, "B" for bombers and "R" for reconnaisance, and "F" for fighters. The F/A-18 was designed to replace three aircraft..... the A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair II and, the F-4H Phantom II. Thus, the designation "F/A."

Buffalo wrote:

the thing that struck me was how huge a divide the Navy made between Fighter (Air-to-Air) and Attack (Air-to-Mud). USN F-4s shot missiles and never pointed their nose at the ground in anger.

The Navy did use their F-4s to drop bombs. The mission when Randy Cunningham shot down three MiGs, his load out as he took off was with 1 centerline tank, 4 sidewinder heat seeking missiles, 2 sparrow radar guided missiles, and 4 rockeyes. It was after the bomb run that the first dogfight took place.

Buffalo wrote:

The bottom line tho is that while I've had my butt handed to me by Hornets and on occasion got my day VFR only Viper in the driver seat.

The phrase "day VFR only Viper" is exactly what the original design was for or, at least that was what Congress was told. But, the F-16 turned out to be far more versatile than originally expected.

Some referred to the F-18 as a mig killer, it is that in operation desert storm
two F-18s from a carrier splased two MIG-21s on thier way to strike a target
yes the hornets won we have to get the hornet is time in the sun too it is a capable aircraft with exceptional handling qualities but i think since in am former u.s. air force on a F-15C wing i do think that the F-16C edged out the hornet and not by much

Quote:

Some referred to the F-18 as a mig killer, it is that in operation desert storm
two F-18s from a carrier splased two MIG-21s on thier way to strike a target
yes the hornets won we have to get the hornet is time in the sun too it is a capable aircraft with exceptional handling qualities but i think since in am former u.s. air force on a F-15C wing i do think that the F-16C edged out the hornet and not by much

You type that on an iPhone?

One thing that can be said (positive), about the F/A-18 is that when loaded with ordnance, it still has good performance! Maneuvering as aerial combat was developing and while carrying 'four' Mk.-84 LGBs!
When lightly loaded its performance is nothing to write home about (rated at 7.5 G's max.) but, as in this case being designed a 'bomb truck' as a major role in this aircraft's life, was a real plus.

snake4420 wrote:

Some referred to the F-18 as a mig killer, it is that in operation desert storm two F-18s from a carrier splased two MIG-21s on thier way to strike a target yes the hornets won we have to get the hornet is time in the sun

Yes, it does not seem to have a fanbase like the other major fighters. It is the only fourth generation US made fighter which does not have a web board / forum!

Forum: General

F-16 multirole designation vs. F/A-18